andygardener Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 Why would you charge them inflation if you're only after them paying back what they got from the government at the time ? And would you take into account how much tax each person has paid since they left university, some of them have probably already paid it several times over ? Well if they were funded to the tune of say £600 back in the 70's that has to be adjusted for inflation to todays value which might be several thousand pounds. They should be charged the real cost, not 2 groats and a bushell of wheat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted November 11, 2010 Share Posted November 11, 2010 Considering that those who got a degree have probably got a better job than those without, they'll probably be paying far more tax that Johnny Burgerflipper - especially over the course of their lifetime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milquetoast1 Posted November 11, 2010 Share Posted November 11, 2010 Surely they should pay for their retrospective benefit? The clue's in the word retrospective. No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrod Posted November 11, 2010 Share Posted November 11, 2010 Today, students must pay to go to university. And the proposals mean they shall pay even more tomorrow. What of those who went for free? Surely they should pay for their retrospective benefit? And don't forget, if we're going to charge people for 3 years of university, we must also charge everybody for 11 or 13 years of school. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasd75 Posted November 11, 2010 Share Posted November 11, 2010 Considering that those who got a degree have probably got a better job than those without, they'll probably be paying far more tax that Johnny Burgerflipper - especially over the course of their lifetime. Exactly. And they've probably contributed more to society than Johnny.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stan Tamudo Posted November 11, 2010 Share Posted November 11, 2010 And don't forget, if we're going to charge people for 3 years of university, we must also charge everybody for 11 or 13 years of school. GordonBennet, whatever next. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted November 11, 2010 Share Posted November 11, 2010 . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted November 11, 2010 Share Posted November 11, 2010 . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrod Posted November 11, 2010 Share Posted November 11, 2010 Why ?It was a tongue in cheek comment. Of course I don't think we should, any more than we should charge people who studied for 'proper' degrees 20 or 30 years ago and who now contribute heartily to society through their taxes. Instead, we should drastically reduce the number of university places and provide degree education for free, so that only those few suited to an academic career win places. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldprune Posted November 11, 2010 Share Posted November 11, 2010 Many of the folks who didn't go to university when that was free went to technical college or did apprenticeships for which they were not charged. Should we put a retrospective charge on them as well. Then of course folks who left school a few years ago without going to university got jobs when they were plentiful and earned money when graduates who came onto the job market a fewyears later didn't. Another tax in order there don't you think? This is a trully stupid thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.